[2018] KEHC 9473 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9473 (KLR)

The court found no evidence that the grant was obtained through defective proceedings, fraud, or concealment of material facts. The applicants were included as beneficiaries, their consents were properly sought and obtained, and they had the opportunity to object during the confirmation proceedings but did not do...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9473 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Philomena Wanjiku Kinoro; Applicant: Jane Njeri Githu; Respondent: Bernard Gakuru Itwika
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 2893 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AO Muchelule
Legal Topics
Revocation of Grant, Consent of Beneficiaries, Mode of Distribution, Probate and Administration, Intestate Succession
Source Language
en
Family and Children Revocation of Grant Consent of Beneficiaries Mode of Distribution Probate and Administration Intestate Succession

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philomena Wanjiku Kinoro

Applicant

Jane Njeri Githu

Applicant

Bernard Gakuru Itwika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of letters of administration was obtained fraudulently or by concealment of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance.
  3. 3 Whether dissatisfaction with the mode of distribution is a ground for revocation of grant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence that the grant was obtained through defective proceedings, fraud, or concealment of material facts. The applicants were included as beneficiaries, their consents were properly sought and obtained, and they had the opportunity to object during the confirmation proceedings but did not do so. The applicants did not allege forgery, coercion, or duress regarding their signatures. The court held that dissatisfaction with the mode of distribution is not a ground for revocation of grant and should be addressed through an application to set aside the confirmation. The applicants' claims were found to have no basis, as they had duly consented to the confirmation of the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 7th December 2016 is dismissed with costs.